Understanding, questioning and correctly interpreting media was the central theme of a recent evening event held at the Bildungszentrum St. Bernhard in Wiener Neustadt. The event was organised by Peter Mazohl and focused on the EU co-funded BonJour! project (Erasmus+ 2023-1-IT02-KA220-ADU-000160320, focusing on media literacy), which aims to strengthen media literacy among adults aged 55 and over.
The BonJour! project offers a web-based learning platform designed to help older adults develop important digital and media skills. Participants can learn how to create digital content and gain a more profound understanding of how images, news, and social media shape our perception. A particular focus is placed on recognising reliable information, identifying fake news, and critically evaluating media content.
Screenshot of the opening page of the learning platform.
During the event, several speakers provided short impulse presentations from different professional perspectives. Peter Mazohl, the Austrian project coordinator, introduced the BonJour! project and highlighted the importance of media literacy in an increasingly digital society.
Philipp Grabner, formerly a local journalist and now a member of the editorial team of the Niederösterreichische Nachrichten, spoke about the importance of local journalism and the challenges faced by today’s media landscape. His presentation addressed how misinformation and filter bubbles can influence public opinion.
Michael Mazohl, media consultant, podcaster and author, explored the dynamics of social media under the title “Links, Likes and Lies”. His talk focused on how online platforms influence communication, visibility and the spread of information.
Finally, media educator Harald Makl presented the structure of the BonJour! learning platform. The platform consists of five modules and offers personalised learning paths, automated progress analysis and feedback. It is designed to be easy to use and to support learners in developing media competence independently.
The panellists of the event (from left to right): Harald Makl (Media Educator), Michael Mazohl (Blogger, Author and media consultant), Philipp Grabner (Journalist) and Peter Mazohl (Head of the EBI)
Open for questions
The evening concluded with a panel discussion and open Q&A session, giving participants the opportunity to ask questions and share their perspectives. The event ended in a relaxed atmosphere with a small buffet, allowing for further conversations and exchange of ideas.
The strong interest from participants showed that media literacy is an increasingly important topic—especially for older adults who want to navigate the digital world confidently and responsibly.
The audience was first listening the introduction, but started timely an interesting discussion with the panellists.
Funded by the European Union. Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Education and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA). Neither the European Union nor EACEA can be held responsible for them.
In einer Zeit, in der Nachrichten nicht mehr nur gedruckt auf dem Frühstückstisch liegen, sondern im Sekundentakt auf unseren Smartphones aufpoppen, hat sich das Wesen der Information grundlegend verändert. Früher bildeten Leitartikel namhafter Zeitungen das Fundament der öffentlichen Debatte; heute konkurrieren sie mit flüchtigen „Likes“ und oft zweifelhaften Meldungen in den sozialen Netzwerken. Das schreit nach “Medienkompetenz für Senioren” und alle Bürger, die sich kritisch mit Medien auseinandersetzen wollen.
Für viele Bürger, insbesondere für die Generation, die mit der Verlässlichkeit des klassischen Journalismus aufgewachsen ist, stellt sich eine drängende Frage: Wem können wir in diesem digitalen Labyrinth noch glauben?
Der schmale Grat zwischen Meinung und Manipulation
Der digitale Wandel bietet enorme Chancen für die Teilhabe, doch er birgt auch Risiken für den gesellschaftlichen Zusammenhalt. Desinformation und gezielte Falschmeldungen polarisieren Debatten und gefährden das Vertrauen in unsere demokratischen Institutionen. Besonders die Generation 55+ steht hier vor einer neuen Herausforderung: Es gilt, die jahrzehntelange Lebenserfahrung mit den technischen Mechanismen der digitalen Welt zu verknüpfen.
Wo endet die persönliche Meinung eines Nutzers, und wo beginnt die systematische Lüge? Um diesen schmalen Grat zu erkennen, bedarf es mehr als nur technisches Verständnis – es bedarf einer Rückbesinnung auf das journalistische Handwerk.
Genau hier setzt unsere kommende Veranstaltung an. Wir freuen uns, zwei Experten begrüßen zu dürfen, die Licht in das Dickicht der Informationsflut bringen:
Ein führender Journalist wird über das Ringen um Objektivität im digitalen Zeitalter berichten und aufzeigen, warum fundierte Leitartikel gerade heute als Kompass unverzichtbar sind.
Ein erfahrener Medienberater, Autor und Blogger gewährt Einblicke in die akribische Praxis der Recherche. Am Beispiel seines aktuellen Buches, das auf über 200 verifizierten Quellen basiert, demonstriert er, dass Wahrheit kein Zufallsprodukt ist, sondern das Ergebnis harter, methodischer Arbeit.
Das BonJour!-Projekt: Brücken bauen, Kompetenz stärken
Hinter diesen Bemühungen steht das BonJour-Projekt. Unser Ziel ist es, die Medienkompetenz älterer Erwachsener nachhaltig zu stärken. Wir sind überzeugt: Medienbildung ist kein Privileg der Jugend, sondern eine notwendige Voraussetzung für aktive Bürgerschaft in jedem Alter.
Wir entwickelten das neue Berufsbild des „Media Educator for the Elderly“ – Spezialisten, die Senioren dabei unterstützen, nicht nur Konsumenten, sondern souveräne und kritische Akteure in der digitalen Welt zu sein. Es geht darum, das kritische Denken zu schärfen, die Selbstwirksamkeit zu fördern und die Kluft zwischen den Generationen zu überbrücken.
Unterstützt werden diese Bemühungen durch einen Onlinekurs, der in fünf Modulen einen Überblick über Basiswissen zum Arbeiten im Internet, dem Problem der Unterscheidung von Fakten und Meinungen und eigenen journalistisch seriösen Veröffentlichungen anbietet. Der Selbstlernkurs ist auf einer niedrigschwelligen Plattform zu erreichen: BonJour! Training Kurs und steht in den Sprachen Deutsch, Englisch, Italienisch, Portugiesisch, Polnisch und Türkisch zur Verfügung.
Einladung zum Dialog
Wir laden Sie herzlich ein, Teil dieser wichtigen Debatte zu werden. Lassen Sie uns gemeinsam lernen, wie wir die Mechanismen der Manipulation durchschauen und die Qualität der Information wieder in den Mittelpunkt rücken.
Bleiben Sie informiert, bleiben Sie kritisch – bewahren wir gemeinsam die Kultur des fundierten Wortes.
„Letztlich ist Medienkompetenz für Senioren das entscheidende Herzstück unserer Arbeit im Erasmus+ BonJour! Projekt, da sie als digitaler Schutzschild gegen Desinformation fungiert und der Generation 55+ die nötige Souveränität verleiht, um auch im digitalen Zeitalter sicher, kritisch und selbstbestimmt am gesellschaftlichen Dialog teilzunehmen.“Peter Mazohl
Funded by the European Union. Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Education and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA). Neither the European Union nor EACEA can be held responsible for them.
On 19 November 2025, partners of the BonJour! project met in Funchal, Madeira (Portugal) for a project coordination meeting. The meeting focused on reviewing project progress, coordinating upcoming activities, and preparing the next implementation steps.
The session began with a short overview of the overall project status, including administrative and financial updates as well as upcoming deadlines and deliverables. This helped ensure that all partners share a clear understanding of the current stage of the project.
A central topic of the meeting was the progress of Work Packages 2 and 3, including the confirmation of remaining tasks and the planning of translations. Partners discussed responsibilities and agreed on a timeline to finalise the remaining work.
Another important part of the meeting focused on Work Package 4, particularly the development of guidelines for educators who will use the BonJour! learning platform. The partners reviewed a draft version of the guidelines and discussed how the platform can best support learning activities with senior learners.
Pilot Training of all partners
The consortium also exchanged experiences from earlier activities and began planning local training sessions for older adults in the partner countries. These sessions will help test and refine the learning platform in real learning environments.
In addition, the partners discussed the evaluation of training activities, including the design of questionnaires and the overall evaluation methodology. This will help measure the learning outcomes and improve future training activities.
6 Language Versions of the Platform
The meeting concluded with a discussion about the translation of the platform and the coordination of next steps. Partners summarised the key decisions and confirmed the upcoming milestones and deadlines.
Screenshot of the opening page of the learning platform.
Overall, the meeting was productive and helped move the BonJour! project forward, ensuring that the learning platform and training activities continue to develop successfully.
When I talk about Flipped Learning, people often expect discussions about videos, self-paced content, or digital tools. But very quickly, the conversation shifts somewhere else. It shifts to what actually happens when learners come together.
Because in Flipped Learning 3.0, the group space is where the real work begins. It is where ideas are exchanged, questions are explored, and understanding is built together. And that makes one thing surprisingly important: how we start.
That is why I find myself coming back to icebreakers.
Not because they are central to the method, but because they reveal something deeper. They show how we think about learning, about participants, and about the purpose of our time together.
Not everyone in the room is equally convinced — and that, perhaps, is precisely the point.
Icebreakers in Adult Education: Do We Really Need Them?
Icebreakers in Adult Education: the only situation where highly qualified professionals willingly pretend to be a farm animal to feel more comfortable around strangers.
Let me be honest with you. I’ve sat through more icebreakers than I care to remember.
The ones where you have to share “two truths and a lie” with a room full of colleagues. The ones where you throw a ball and say your name. The ones where — God forbid — you have to mime something.
And every single time, I’ve watched the faces of the people in the room. Polite smiles. Slightly glazed eyes. A quiet, collective thought: why are we doing this?
That question has stayed with me for years. And after a long time working in adult education, I think it deserves a proper, honest answer.
Across Europe, adult learning happens in very different settings. Different cultures, different expectations, different professional backgrounds. But one thing is always the same: people come to learn, and their time matters. How we start a session matters more than we often realise.
The Uncomfortable Truth About Icebreakers
Icebreakers: the training world’s version of the terms and conditions — everybody does them, nobody knows why, and no one has ever read the research.
Here’s the thing that most trainers won’t say out loud: a lot of icebreakers exist because trainers are comfortable with them, not because learners benefit from them.
They’ve become a habit. A ritual. Something you do at the start of a session because, well, that’s what you do. Nobody questions it. Nobody asks whether it actually serves the group, the topic, or the moment.
That bothers me deeply.
When an adult professional — someone who has taken time out of their busy day, possibly travelled, possibly paid for the training themselves — walks into a room and spends the first twenty minutes throwing a ball or drawing their “life as a weather forecast,” something has gone wrong.
That person came to learn. They didn’t come to play a game they last saw at a school camp in 1987.
The research, such as it is, doesn’t exactly help the case for icebreakers either. The evidence that they actually improve learning outcomes is remarkably thin. Most of what gets cited is anecdotal. That might be real. But feelings aren’t proof.
When Icebreakers Go Wrong
I’ve seen the same patterns again and again.
Too many, too often. Using an icebreaker at the start of every session, day after day, stops being energising and starts being exhausting. People begin to dread them.
Completely disconnected from the topic. A group of experienced professionals doesn’t need to build a tower out of spaghetti to feel connected. They need something that respects why they are there.
Activities designed for teenagers, used on adults. This breaks trust very quickly. It feels patronising.
Participation that isn’t really optional. When saying “no” feels impossible, we are not creating safety. We are creating pressure.
The difference between a good opening and a bad one isn’t the activity — it’s whether anyone in the room actually needed it.
So When Do Icebreakers Actually Make Sense?
Icebreakers are like salt — a pinch at the right moment makes everything better, but if you keep adding it throughout the meal, people start quietly looking for the exit.
I haven’t given up on them completely.
Done well, with intention, they can be useful. But only in the right moment.
For me, that moment is the first meeting of a group — especially in a Flipped Learning 3.0 setting. When people come together after working with content on their own, they arrive with ideas, questions, and experiences. They are ready to work together.
In that situation, a well-designed opener can help build trust and create a shared starting point.
But only once. That’s it.
If you keep using icebreakers again and again, they lose their value. The group has already formed. Move on.
For an icebreaker to be worth the time, it should:
have a clear purpose
fit the group
connect to the topic
feel genuinely optional
A group of nurses discussing a real communication challenge from their work — that works. Asking them about their “spirit animal” does not.
What About Online?
Online sessions are different.
The small, informal moments that happen naturally in a room don’t exist. There is no chat before things start. No quick conversation in the break.
So yes, in online settings, it can make sense to create space for connection.
But it needs to be done carefully.
Technology already creates distance. Silence feels longer. Not everyone feels comfortable speaking or being on camera. If an activity doesn’t work, it is much harder to recover. Simple tools like short polls, word clouds, or one focused question can work well. But the same rule applies: it needs a purpose, and it needs to feel natural.
So: What Do We Do Instead?
If many traditional icebreakers don’t work, the question becomes simple: what should we do instead?
We don’t need to remove openings. We need to design them better.
A good opening is not an activity. It is a function.
Its job is to help people move into learning, quickly and respectfully.
That might mean asking a question that connects to their experience.
It might mean giving a short moment for reflection.
It might mean a quick exchange in pairs about a real situation from their work.
When it is done well, it doesn’t feel like an “icebreaker”.
It feels like the learning has already started.
What Theory Actually Tells Us
If we look at how adults learn, this all makes sense.
Adults do not come into a room empty. They bring experience, expectations, and a need for relevance. If we ignore that, we lose them early.
Learning also does not start after an activity. It starts immediately. From the first minute, people are already making sense of what is happening.
That means the opening matters. It is not a warm-up. It is part of the learning.
Many trainers use icebreakers to create connection or psychological safety. That intention is important. But safety does not come from forced playfulness. It comes from respect, clarity, and the feeling that participation is real and optional.
Motivation works in a similar way. People engage when they feel that what they are doing makes sense, that they are taken seriously, and that they have some control over their participation.
In Flipped Learning 3.0, this becomes even clearer. When learners arrive prepared, the group space is not there to “get started”. It is there to think, discuss, and work together. A poorly chosen icebreaker can interrupt that process.
These ideas are not new. Malcolm Knowles showed that adult learning depends on experience and relevance. Piaget and Bruner described learning as an active process of making meaning. Vygotsky highlighted the importance of meaningful interaction. Kolb connected learning to real experience and reflection. Deci and Ryan showed how motivation depends on autonomy, competence, and connection.
All of this points in the same direction.
Good openings do not “break the ice”.
They help people start learning.
Rethinking Icebreakers for the Future
Maybe the real question is not: What is a good icebreaker?
Maybe the real question is: What does this group need right now to start learning well?
The best icebreaker is sometimes no icebreaker at all — just a good question and the confidence to trust your group.
Sometimes, that might still look like an icebreaker. Especially in a new group, or online.
But often, it won’t.
Sometimes, the best start is a good question.
Sometimes, it is a brief moment to think.
Sometimes, it is simply starting clearly and getting into the topic.
As educators, we have a responsibility here.
We should be able to explain why we do what we do. Not with vague ideas about “energy”, but with a clear link to learning.
If an activity does not serve that, it does not belong.
A good start doesn’t need a gimmick — just a clear purpose and a room full of people who feel it’s worth their time.
A Final Thought
In the end, this is not really about icebreakers.
It is about intention. It is about whether we design learning for the people in the room — or for our own habits. Participants notice. They know when something is meaningful, and when it is not.
If you are going to use an icebreaker, make it count.
If you can’t explain, in one sentence, why this activity helps this group learn at this moment — then maybe the best thing you can do is simply start.
A Note on Terminology
To avoid confusion, here is how I use these terms:
Icebreaker
An activity to help people get to know each other and feel more comfortable in a new group.
Opener
A starting activity that connects directly to the topic and helps begin the learning process.
Energiser
A short activity used during a session to bring energy back.
Check-in
A brief moment at the start where participants share how they are or what they expect.
Transition activity
A short activity that helps move from one part of a session to another.
This article was published as part of the BonJou! project, which included a series of training sessions for coaches, media educators, and interested adults.
Funded by the European Union. Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Education and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA). Neither the European Union nor EACEA can be held responsible for them.
Wrocław provided a fitting setting for this international training on media literacy, fact-checking and cybersecurity. The city is known for its beautiful market square, colourful historic buildings and lively cultural life. With its open and welcoming atmosphere, Wrocław offered an inspiring place for learning, exchange and cooperation.
The event in Wrocław formed part of a multi-day international training programme that brought together learners and trainers from five countries: Austria, Italy, Portugal, Poland and Türkiye. At least two learners from each country took part in the training, which gave the meeting a truly European and intercultural character. This international mix created valuable opportunities for exchange, discussion and mutual learning throughout the programme.
A well-structured training programme
The training programme followed a clear and meaningful structure. One part of the programme introduced participants to the wider project and helped them get to know one another. Another part focused on the question of what media literacy means today and which media competences older people especially need. This created an important foundation for the practical sessions that followed.
The structure of the training worked especially well because it moved step by step from general understanding to practical action. Participants first explored why media literacy matters in everyday life. Then they worked on fact-checking, source analysis and media-related critical thinking. After that, they turned to cybersecurity and learned how to recognise and avoid online threats such as phishing. This sequence gave the programme a strong educational logic and helped participants connect the different topics.
The training involved participants actively by group work, or presentations and joint discussions.
The training also included several feedback moments. These gave participants time to reflect on what they had learned and to share their impressions with the group. This made the programme feel interactive and learner-centred. Participants did not simply listen to presentations. They asked questions, solved tasks together, discussed examples and contributed their own experiences.
The intercultural evening added another important element to the event. Participants from the different countries prepared dishes and cultural contributions and shared them with the group. This part of the programme strengthened the social side of the training and helped build trust and openness among the participants.
More than a meeting: a shared European learning experience
The multi-day training in Wrocław offered much more than a series of lessons. It created a shared European learning experience that combined practical knowledge, social exchange and intercultural understanding. Because learners from different countries took part, the discussions also reflected different perspectives, habits and experiences in dealing with digital media.
This international dimension mattered. Media literacy and cyber security affect people across Europe, but people do not always approach these topics in the same way. By learning together, participants could compare experiences, ask questions freely and discover that many digital challenges are shared across borders. This gave the training additional value and strengthened its European spirit.
Training focus 1: Analyse! Media Literacy and Fact Checking
One important session in the programme was Analyse! Media Literacy and Fact Checking, delivered by MMI, the Portuguese project partner. This session introduced the topic in an interactive and engaging way through a question-and-answer game.
This format worked especially well because it encouraged participants to take an active role from the start. Instead of receiving information only through explanation, they engaged with key ideas through questions, answers and group interaction. The game-based approach likely helped participants reflect on their existing knowledge, test their assumptions and build confidence in discussing media-related issues.
The session also fitted very well into the overall structure of the training. It created a bridge between the broader introduction to media literacy and the more detailed practical activities that followed later in the programme. By using a question-and-answer format, MMI helped make the topic accessible and lively. This was especially important in a mixed international learning group, where interactive methods often support participation more effectively than lecture-style teaching alone.
In the context of the full training, this session played an important role. It helped participants focus on key questions related to media literacy and fact-checking, and it prepared them for deeper work on source credibility, misinformation and critical evaluation. It also supported the learner-centred spirit of the event, since participants learned through participation, discussion and shared reflection.
Training focus 2: Source Detective – Who’s Behind the Article – and is it true?
One of the key practical sessions of the training was Source Detective – Who’s Behind the Article – and is it true? This training focused on a central question of media literacy: how can we decide whether an online article is trustworthy or misleading?
The learner document set out three clear goals for the session. By the end, participants should know how to recognise reliable online sources, use digital tools to check information, and feel more confident when deciding what to trust and share. These goals show that the session aimed not only to provide knowledge, but also to strengthen confidence and independent judgement.
The session used a strongly practical format. Participants worked in small groups of two to four and analysed three online articles. They had to ask key questions such as: Who published the article? Is an author named? What is the purpose of the text? Does the article include facts and sources? Does it appear biased or promotional? This method gave participants a simple but effective structure for analysing digital content.
The emphasis of this practical training was the group-based learning and jointly done work, with interactive presentations.
The training also introduced useful tools that support fact-checking and source verification. Participants could use Google Search, WHOIS Lookup, ICANN Lookup, Snopes and EDMO to investigate authors, websites and claims. This was a very important part of the session because it moved beyond theory. Participants did not only hear that they should verify information. They learned how to do it.
At the end of the session, participants shared their thoughts, joined a Mentimeter poll about their most and least trusted sources, and reflected on what made them trust or distrust an article. They also discussed what they would feel safe sharing on social media. These reflective tasks linked the activity directly to everyday online behaviour and personal decision-making.
The choice of the example articles also strengthened the session. The document included examples from NASA, Reuters and a more questionable health-related website. This contrast likely helped participants see how credibility depends on several factors, such as the reputation of the publisher, the transparency of authorship, the purpose of the text and the quality of the evidence. The activity therefore trained participants not only to consume information, but to examine it critically.
Overall, Source Detective gave participants a practical method for checking online content. It encouraged them to slow down, ask questions and verify before they trust or share.
Training focus 3: Stop and Think! – Cyber Security
Another important training session was Stop and Think! – Cyber Security. This module focused strongly on phishing awareness and practical digital self-protection. It aimed to help participants recognise online threats and respond to them in a calm and informed way.
The module began with an introduction to cyber-attacks and then narrowed its focus to phishing. It defined a cyberattack as an attempt to access a computer network or system in order to alter, steal, destroy or expose information. It also listed common types of cyberattacks, including malware, denial-of-service attacks, phishing, spoofing, insider threats, social engineering, AI-powered attacks, DNS tunnelling and code injection attacks. This overview gave participants a helpful understanding of the wider digital risk landscape before focusing on one particularly relevant threat.
The module then explained phishing as a digital scam that tries to obtain personal information such as usernames, passwords, credit card details and other confidential data. From there, the session introduced several forms of phishing, including bulk phishing, spear phishing, whaling, smishing and vishing. This showed participants that phishing can happen in different formats and can target both large groups and specific individuals.
A particularly strong part of the module was its focus on recognising warning signs. The session taught participants to look for unusual sender email addresses, generic greetings, urgent or threatening language, spelling and grammar mistakes, suspicious links or attachments, requests for personal information, unrealistic offers, inconsistencies in email design and weak signatures. It also mentioned email verification tools as another useful step. These signs gave participants a practical checklist for everyday situations.
The module also included hands-on learning activities. Participants worked with phishing images, identified suspicious elements, compared fake and real emails, and completed a phishing awareness quiz. These activities made the topic concrete and understandable. They translated cyber risks into visible examples and practical decisions.
The lesson on precautions added another important layer. The material stressed that people should avoid clicking on links in unexpected emails or messages, should never share passwords or financial information carelessly, and should use strong passwords, two-factor authentication and updated software. It also asked participants to think about what they should do if they clicked on a phishing link. In this way, the session did not stop at identifying danger. It also equipped participants with practical strategies for prevention and response.
Why the three sessions worked so well together
These three sessions complemented each other very effectively. The session by MMI introduced media literacy and fact-checking through an interactive question-and-answer game and created an accessible entry point into the topic. Source Detective then built on this foundation and gave participants a practical method for checking the credibility of articles, authors and publishers. Finally, Stop and Think! – Cyber Security shifted the focus towards digital safety and helped participants recognise and avoid phishing attempts and other online threats.
Together, the sessions addressed three important dimensions of digital competence. First, participants reflected on key ideas and questions connected to media literacy. Second, they learned how to verify information and judge online content more critically. Third, they developed practical strategies for protecting themselves in digital environments. This combination made the programme coherent, relevant and highly useful for everyday life.
A meaningful multi-day training in Wrocław
The training in Wrocław offered much more than information. It gave participants the chance to learn together, reflect together and build confidence together. Across several days, the programme combined critical thinking, practical skill-building and intercultural exchange in a way that felt both structured and human.
The event helped participants understand today’s digital challenges in a concrete and accessible way. It also strengthened their ability to question online sources, recognise misleading content, identify phishing attempts and make safer choices online. Because the training brought together learners from Austria, Italy, Portugal, Poland and Türkiye, it also showed the value of European cooperation in adult education.
That is what made the training so meaningful. It did not only inform participants. It empowered them.
Funded by the European Union. Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Education and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA). Neither the European Union nor EACEA can be held responsible for them.
Micro-learning (ML) is an approach to education that delivers small, focused learning units. These bite-sized lessons focus on a single topic or skill, making it easier for learners to absorb and apply new knowledge quickly. Typically, micro-learning is designed for short and engaging sessions, often lasting just a few minutes. It is widely used in digital education, training, and professional development.
Key Features of Micro-Learning
Imagine learning something new, but instead of long lectures, you get short, focused bursts of information. Think of it like this: each lesson is a quick, easy-to-digest experience, designed to be completed in just a few minutes.
We’re not trying to overwhelm you; we’re focusing on one specific topic or skill per unit, ensuring you truly understand what’s being taught. To keep things interesting, we’ve packed each lesson with engaging content, using multimedia elements like videos, quizzes, and interactive tasks.
You can learn whenever and wherever you want, accessing the content on any device because we understand life gets busy. And most importantly, you’re in control. You can complete the lessons at your own speed, ensuring you fully grasp each concept before moving on. It’s like having a personal learning journey, tailored just for you.
Advantages of Micro-Learning
The learning approach based on ML provides numerous advantages. Most of them are relevant in Adult Education.
Improved retention When learning happens in short bursts, it becomes easier to remember key information. Instead of being overwhelmed by long lectures or heavy reading, you can focus on one idea at a time and truly absorb it.
Time-efficient We all have busy schedules, and finding time for long training sessions can be difficult. ML allows you to learn in just a few minutes, making it easy to fit into your daily routine—whether during a coffee break, on the train, or between meetings.
Motivating Learning should never feel like a chore! With interactive elements, short quizzes, and engaging visuals, ML keeps you interested and involved. When lessons are varied and fun, staying motivated comes naturally.
AdaptableML-learning can be tailored to your needs. It works well across different industries, education levels, and learning styles, ensuring that everyone can benefit.
Cost-effective ML enables quick and simple methods to develop while still delivering high-quality education. In many cases, content is reusable and can be integrated in other learning context. This makes it an ideal solution for organisations and educators looking to provide effective training without high costs.
ML content can be created using digital tools such as H5P and CANVA. These platforms allow educators and trainers to design engaging learning experiences with minimal technical effort.
H5P
H5P is an open-source framework that allows the creation of interactive learning content within learning management systems such as Moodle. It supports interactive videos, quizzes, simulations, and presentations that encourage learner participation.
CANVA
CANVA is an easy-to-use design tool that enables educators to create visually appealing learning materials. It offers templates for presentations, infographics, and social media posts, making micro-learning more engaging and accessible.
ML in the BonJour! Project
The Low-Threshold Learning Platform(s) developed in the frame of the project makes extensively use of ML.
The spread of disinformation and misinformation poses risks to democracy, public health, and social cohesion, particularly affecting older adults who often lack adequate media literacy. The BonJour! project aims to bridge this gap by enhancing media literacy, journalism skills, and digital competencies for people over 55, fostering their social activism, and reducing the generational digital divide through blended learning formats.
Project number: 2023-1-IT02-KA220-ADU-000160320
Webpage: www.bonjour-project.eu/
The limits of a system that should make you think.
AI is neither intelligent nor creative. What we know as computer users are language models that represent a natural language interface to a powerful data pool. This data pool is created through so-called “machine learning”, which is nothing more than a systematic mediation of information available to all of us. This fact alone excludes creativity as far as possible. Anything that goes beyond the combination of existing information simply does not exist. Let’s talk about AI limits!
It is easy to show that AI can only reproduce what already exists and that this depends on the learning process:
Answer: Here is your full red wine glass! Let me know if you want any changes. 🍷😊
Second attempt: Please draw it more full!
Full glass of red wine, second attempt by ChatGPT.
Here’s your red wine glass full to the brim! 🍷 Hopefully without spilling. 😉 Let me know if you want any adjustments!
Let us try another commonly used AI tool to check the situation
Microsoft CoPilot
Prompt: Please draw a full glass of red wine.
Full glass of red wine, first attempt by Microsoft Copilot.
Please make the glass really full!
Full glass of red wine, second attempt by Microsoft Copilot.
Here’s a red wine glass that’s really filled to the brim! I hope this is exactly what you had in mind. 🍷
I mention that this outcome does not match with the asked picture. Copilot gives up: You’re right, it seems I’m currently struggling to make a really full glass of red wine look photorealistic. My skills have their limits when it comes to certain details or precision in generated images.
Why is that – what is the reason for this phenomenon?
AI does not understand what the user wants at all. In plain language: The prompt is an input that is interpreted according to learned patterns and implemented on a random basis. However, the random hit rate – due to incredibly expensive training – is close to 100%.
The prompt is analysed in an attempt to provide an answer from the knowledge base. In our query, images of wine glasses are searched for, the information is incorporated in red and then an image is created based on the hits found.
The crucial point is the data material: the image training is apparently done with wine glasses that are well filled. Apparently, there are no images of full glasses, and this condition is not explicitly explained. The AI does not understand the term “full” in this context because AI generally does not understand anything.
The experiment with the water glasses
Please draw a photorealistic picture of 4 glasses of water standing next to each other: The first is empty, the second is half full, the third is three-quarters full, and the fourth is “completely” full.
These water glasses are created by ChatGPT. Prompt: Please draw a photorealistic picture of 4 glasses of water standing next to each other: The first is empty, the second is half full, the third is three-quarters full, and the fourth is completely full.
Water glasses created by Microsoft Copilot. Prompt: Please draw a photorealistic picture of 4 glasses of water standing next to each other: The first is empty, the second is half full, the third is three-quarters full, and the fourth is completely full.Evaluate the results yourself!
What do we conclude from this? Where are AI limits?
AI can be a useful tool for completing tasks that are tedious and time-consuming. but – AI has limits!
Anything related to text works really well because of the excellent language models. Automated queries such as creating lists, reformatting, pulling common keywords from a text also work well.
Writing a small program that renames all images in a folder according to a certain predefined logic is also possible without any problems and is created to the satisfaction of the client.
Caution is advised when it comes to factual knowledge, things related to creativity or complex logical contexts.
AI always provides an answer – but it is the user’s responsibility to analyse and make any necessary corrections. Never forget! AI limits are always to be considered!
What does AI say on this subject?
ChatGPT
The Limits of AI: Creativity and Intelligent Connections
AI has made impressive progress in many areas, but it still has clear limitations, especially in creativity and the ability to make truly intelligent connections. Below is a detailed look at these limits, including the field of image generation.
1. Creativity: Can AI Truly Be Creative?
AI can simulate creativity but does not experience it. Human creativity comes from emotions, personal experiences, and deep understanding, while AI works by analysing patterns in existing data. This leads to several key limitations:
Lack of Originality: AI generates content based on learned patterns. It cannot create something truly new in the way humans can.
No Personal Insight: AI does not have its own thoughts, emotions, or experiences, so it cannot produce ideas based on intuitive leaps.
Struggles with Abstract Thinking: AI finds it difficult to understand or create works based on deeper philosophical, artistic, or cultural insights.
Example: A human artist may invent an entirely new art style based on personal emotions, but AI can only remix elements from existing styles.
2. Intelligent Connections: Does AI Really “Think”?
AI can analyse vast amounts of data and detect patterns that humans might miss. However, its reasoning is mechanical, not truly intelligent. The main limitations include:
No Real Understanding: AI processes information statistically but does not “understand” concepts as humans do. It cannot truly grasp irony, sarcasm, or deep meanings.
Context Struggles: AI can make connections based on data but often misses the bigger picture. It may link two ideas incorrectly or fail to see an obvious relationship.
Logical Errors: AI does not reason like a human—it follows predefined rules, so it sometimes produces flawed or nonsensical conclusions.
Example: AI can summarise a news article but might misinterpret a metaphor or fail to connect it to historical events in a meaningful way.
3. Image Generation: Strengths and Weaknesses
AI-generated images have advanced significantly, but they still have weaknesses:
Strengths:
✔ Fast and detailed: AI can produce high-quality images in seconds. ✔ Style adaptation: AI can replicate existing art styles effectively. ✔ Endless variations: AI can generate multiple versions of an idea quickly.
Weaknesses:
❌ Inconsistencies: AI sometimes struggles with small details, like correct hand or eye placement. ❌ Lack of deep meaning: AI-generated images can look artistic but lack true emotional depth. ❌ Creativity limits: AI can only remix existing styles and elements—it does not invent truly original art.
Example: An AI can create an impressive surreal painting, but a human artist adds symbolism and personal meaning that AI cannot replicate.
Conclusion: AI as a Tool, Not a Creator
AI is a powerful tool for assisting with creativity and analysis, but it does not truly think or create in the way humans do. It can generate impressive content but lacks the personal insight, originality, and deep understanding that define human intelligence.
For now, AI is best used as a support system—helping humans explore ideas, enhance productivity, and refine creative work. But true creativity and deep connections? Those remain uniquely human strengths.
Microsoft Copilot
The boundaries of artificial intelligence can be understood in various domains. Let me break it down clearly for you, focusing on creativity, intelligent connections, and especially image generation:
Creativity
Strengths: AI excels at generating original ideas and creating content based on patterns, examples, and prompts. For instance, it can write poetry, suggest innovative solutions, or develop novel concepts when guided.
Limitations: True creativity often involves emotional depth, personal experiences, and abstract intuition—qualities AI doesn’t possess. It can mimic creativity but lacks the emotional context behind human artistry.
Intelligent Connections
Strengths: AI is outstanding in identifying and analysing complex patterns in vast datasets. It can synthesise information and connect ideas that might not be immediately obvious to humans. For instance, it can offer cross-disciplinary insights by linking diverse fields of study.
Limitations: AI struggles with subjective interpretations, cultural nuances, and emotionally driven decisions. Its connections are based purely on logic and data, not lived experiences or instinct.
Image Generation
Strengths: AI can generate visually appealing and imaginative images based on text descriptions. This capability opens opportunities in design, marketing, and storytelling.
Limitations: There are challenges with precision. For instance, AI might fail at getting specific details accurate, as you observed with the wineglass examples. AI also cannot recreate exact replicas of real-world objects or respect all stylistic nuances in some cases.
General Boundaries of AI and AI limits
Ethics and Safety: AI cannot engage in harmful, illegal, or unethical tasks, ensuring a responsible interaction framework.
Human-like Understanding: While it can process language and simulate conversations, it doesn’t “understand” concepts as humans do.
Dependence on Input: AI needs clear, specific input to perform effectively. Ambiguity or lack of context can lead to errors.
Imagination vs. Reality: AI “imagines” outcomes based on its training data but doesn’t inherently grasp the reality or functionality of its outputs.
In summary, AI is a remarkable tool, but its abilities still fall short of human intuition, emotion, and precision in certain areas. These limitations offer a collaborative space for human creativity to thrive alongside AI’s computational power.
The intermediate project meeting of the BonJour! Project, organised by Europäische Bildungsinitiative, took place in Wiener Neustadt, bringing together all project partners for an engaging and productive exchange. The meeting was characterised by a positive working climate, valuable discussions, and exciting presentations, reflecting the significant progress made across all work packages.
Key Topics and Outcomes
The meeting opened with WP1: Administration, where partners received feedback on the intermediate report, discussed financial matters, and reviewed necessary amendments. Additionally, key dates for the final Transnational Partner Meeting (TPM) were confirmed. Updates on the evaluation process were also presented.
A major focus was on WP3, with insightful presentations and discussions on the Handbook and the next steps in the local training course for educators. Partners exchanged views on the competencies of educators, ensuring that the training approach meets high-quality standards.
The development of the low-threshold learning platform (WP4) was another highlight of the meeting. Partners were introduced to the possible learning content formats and technical requirements, followed by in-depth discussions leading to key decisions on content structure and methodology. A crucial aspect was the development of learning spaces, both for individual learning on the platform and group-based onsite training. The topic of content translation and localisation was also addressed, ensuring accessibility and cultural adaptation. For this platform, a specific colour coding system has been developed.
The colour coding system of the platform will make it easier for training course participants to navigate in the platform.
A special session focused on training for seniors in Wrocław, where partners explored evaluation methods for assessing seniors’ digital and media competencies. This provided valuable insights into adapting training to meet the specific needs of older learners.
Another essential area of discussion was WP5: Dissemination and Improvement. Strategies were reviewed to enhance visibility, engage stakeholders, and further improve project outcomes.
One of the most exciting aspects was the discussion on recognition frameworks based on Micro-Credentials, which will provide structured validation and certification for learners, ensuring their newly acquired skills are recognised.
Final Reflections
The meeting concluded with a WP1 administration summary, highlighting key takeaways and ensuring that all partners are aligned for the final project phases.
Overall, this meeting was a great success—a combination of valuable exchanges, collaborative spirit, and concrete progress. The presentations on the learning platform sparked enthusiasm, and the extensive discussions on content development and competencies helped shape the next steps. The meeting reaffirmed the shared commitment to developing a high-quality, accessible, and inclusive learning environment for older adults and educators alike.
The partners left motivated and inspired, ready to implement the next phases of the project with clarity and confidence.
Follow-Up of the BonJour! Meeting
This BonJour! Meeting – as an intermediate event of the project – will be followed by the final meeting in November in Madeira.
Understanding, questioning and correctly interpreting media was the central theme of a recent evening event held at the Bildungszentrum St. Bernhard in Wiener Neustadt. The event was organised by Peter Mazohl and focused on the EU co-funded BonJour! project (Erasmus+ 2023-1-IT02-KA220-ADU-000160320, focusing on media literacy), which aims to strengthen media literacy among adults aged 55 and over.
Funded by the European Union. Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Education and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA). Neither the European Union nor EACEA can be held responsible for them.
